26 October 2017 2:23 PM

Free Speech versus the New Repression - a small victory for liberty on a windy hilltop

I spent an enjoyable Tuesday evening in Liverpool haranguing a modest crowd in the open air, something I don’t think I have done since about 1972, when I used occasionally to plead the Trotskyist case to indifferent passers-by on Saturday afternoons, near one of the city’s best fish-and-chip shops, in King’s Square, in York. Some pictures used to exist of these events (taken without my knowledge) but the prints I was kindly but anonymously sent a few years ago have gone missing in one of my many moves. I wonder if the negatives still exist. They emerged because Matthew Norman, who then ran the Guardian diary, was insisting (mistakenly) that I had worn a moustacheless Manfred Mann beard in my Bolshevik days. The truth (revealed on the right in a 1969 picture) was that I sported sidewhiskers like hairy caterpillars, a style then reasonably common. But not a beard. That came later, and it was a full set on both occasions.

But I digress. I was speaking in the open air on Tuesday night for two reasons. This story from the Liverpool Echo (though it regrettably calls me a ‘Conservative’ and there was no soapbox, just a convenient bench) sets the scene

Also I did not speak continuously for 90 minutes, I am not Fidel Castro, but gave a short harangue and then took many questions from those present. It was a pleasant autumn evening in the fresh air, and I think it was much improved by the fact that the audience were alert and standing up (I work at a standing desk, and think it improves concentration and general health). Interestingly nobody coughed (as they do in multitudes in indoor meetings at this time of year), and the cough-sweets which I had brought with me to offer to offenders remained unused in my pocket.

The meeting was about drugs, and the non-existent war against them. But this was not the problem. The problem was that, to speak on University premises, I would have been obliged to agree to the provisions in these documents

Section 6 in the first of these contains such provisions as : ‘If the event involves an external speaker, then an initial internet search should be conducted to identify whether there are any initial concerns about the speaker….If such concerns are identified then a full risk assessment should take place.’

The excuse or pretext given for this is (of course) the prevention of terrorism, the excuse or pretext for a general assault on English liberty now well under way, and an inadequate and mistaken one in my view , since the longstanding laws against incitement to violence are compatible with free speech and are quite clear as it is) but look at this: ‘If the initial assessment identifies that there may be a possibility of people being drawn into terrorism or of hate speech or serious public disorder or any other factor which causes concern, a panel meeting will be required to discuss the risk assessment.’

This, particularly the wording ‘or any other factor which causes concern’, seems to me (like most such provisions) to have the characteristics of a catch-all which in a slightly different climate (or even this one) could be used to ban a speaker whose views were not approved of for very different reasons.

As for this below (emphases mine) it doesn’t seem to me to be compatible with the concept of free speech at all. :

‘p) The risk assessment will consider measures to reduce any risks associated with the event; this may include requirements such as that: i) admission tickets be issued; ii) there be provision for checking the numbers and/or identity of all those attending the meeting; iii) individuals be named as chairpersons for the meeting or activity; 8 iv) speakers may be asked to provide written undertakings about the conduct of the event and the content of their speech; v) speakers may be asked to provide an outline of their speech for approval prior to the event taking place; vi) a specified number of stewards or porters be available, at the expense of whomsoever the Deputy Vice-Chancellor or his/her appointed officer deems appropriate; vii) the local police be informed of the meeting or activity, and, if appropriate, be invited to attend; viii) any charges levied by the local police be met by the organising body; ix) a written explanation be given concerning the proposed conduct of the meeting or activity; x) particular arrangements be made to comply with fire or other safety arrangements; xi) payment in advance be required to cover hire charges and other reasonable contingencies; xii) full details of the planned movements of speakers (time of arrival and departure, names of those accompanying the speaker) be made available as soon as known and any changes of arrangements be notified promptly.’

Well, I had met similar things once or twice before in dealings with student societies at some London universities, and told the organisers I could not agree to them. I had expected those organisers to respond by suggesting holding the meeting on premises where such rules didn’t apply. But no such luck.

Tom Willett, who had invited me to Liverpool, was made of tougher stuff. He risked his own money by acting as a private individual and hiring a hall which was not on University territory. And that is where the meeting would have happened, except that whoever was supposed to unlock the hall on the evening failed to turn up in time.

Well, Tom is a man of spirit, and this was Liverpool, and it wasn’t actually raining, so the response seemed obvious. I suggested that we went ahead anyway, in the open air. There was a nearby space where it seemed to me we would be disturbing nobody and obstructing nobody, so we just went ahead. And so we did, and pretty successful it was too, good, sharp, robust debate, everyone a bit too cold and uncomfortable to be boring and long-winded, but not so cold and uncomfortable asa to be driven away by cold and misery. I think the whole audience remained to the very end(with perhaps one exception).

And it was also a small declaration, on that windy hilltop, that the spirit of liberty isn’t dead in this country. My thanks to all who came and stayed. It was a privilege to be there.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

The second submission:

To Mr Preston

Thank you for your kind reply. I think it is a good thing that there are different words for different things/beings. It must have been really boring if there were much fewer words to describe the whole world and everything in it.

By the way, in Japanese, one can say ’parents’, ’fathers’ and ’mothers’ for a meaning of ’a father + a mother’. One is supposed to be able to understand who they are in its context. But for instance ’fathers’ in Japanese can also mean ten ’fathers’ but also ’father and other family members’ and ’mothers’ can mean so, as well.

I think the word like ’midwife’ is interesting too. At first, I though it was funny using this word even for a man - although I am not sure if a male midwife is so popular - but the dictionary says:

Midwife : a person who assists women in childbirth
Origin and Etymology of midwife
Middle English midwif, from mid with (from Old English) + wif woman
(Merriam-Webster)

However, we do not need a new word for ’a person who assists men in childbirth’ - the reality is rather ’stubborn’ - it has not changed (yet).

I am very glad you like the word, ma'am. In these days, when actresses call themselves "actors" and are encouraged in this confusion of language by the news media, it is refreshing to read your words. I remember, when I used occasionally to teach Spanish to evening classes a few decades ago, some of the women students seemed to find it laughable that in that language groups of people which were a mix of male and female persons were always referred to by a masculine plural substantive. For example, "my parents" was "mis padres" (literally, "my fathers").
Of course, in these iconoclastic days, even that - for all I know - may no longer be the case in modern Spanish but what interests me is how what was seen then in Spanish as laughable, if not actually reprehensible, seems now in English to have become normal, if not actually 'politically correct', as the saying goes.

When I lived in London many moons ago I enjoyed a Sunday morning stroll through Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park and idling my time listening to some of the debates. I recall at the time on several occasions watching Lord Soper, the Methodist minister and politician in action exchanging views with the crowd. Would Mr Hitchens consider having a weekly soap box at Speaker's Corner in view of his enjoyable experience in Liverpool?

Ky - your comment on Land of Hope and Glory intested me so I tried to find out more about it on Wiki:

"Wider still and wider shall thy bounds be set": The writing of the song is contemporaneous with the publication of Cecil Rhode's will in which he bequeathed his considerable wealth for the specific purpose of promoting "the extension of British rule throughout the world", and added a long detailed list of territories which Rhodes wanted brought under British rule and colonised by British people." So much for other people's freedom.

Strangely enough I see that ""Land of Hope and Glory" was the England team's victory anthem at the Commonwealth Games until 2010, when the public rejected it in a poll in favour of "Jerusalem". - I had thought only Americans could believe the crazy tale of Jesus visiting America, but now I read that Jerusalem was inspired by the story that young Jesus travelled to England.The poem is also linked to the Book of Revelation(!) describing a second coming in which Jesus establishes a New Jerusalem. - in England, it seems. Where else?

Perhaps "God Save whoever happens to be the Monarch at the time" is a better national anthem after all.

"It is indeed strange especially when one thinks of how much swear words are used as if they were ’innocent’ ones. They are seemingly justified because they are ’honest’ expressions and ’funny’ for some people. The world upside down."

The covert 'political correctors' - if they exist at all, for neither their identities nor any qualifications they may have for de-bugging the English language seem ever to be disclosed - seem to me to be arguing that words themselves are to be judged offensive or inoffensive, without reference to the intentions of the people who have used them.
I deny that person A be in any position to know what intention person B may have had in using word x or words x, y and z without asking person B. Suspicions are one thing; knowledge is another.
The covert censors seem to imply a kind of warning to any speakers of English: You speak the words; we will inform you of what you meant by them.
Whatever happened to our "land of hope and glory, mother of the free"?
If our citizens are finally to be enslaved, let us at least drop all this "last night of the proms" hypocrisy.

I would've loved to have been in attendance for this (though I'm not sure I would have been available for it), not least because Liverpool is easily within travelling distance from where I live, and I've rarely, if ever, been at a live debate before. As it happens, I was in Liverpool a few weeks ago, one Friday evening, with family, on what was my second ever visit to that city. The first time was many years ago and was so brief that it didn't feel like a visit at all. One thing we all noted was that every Liverpudlian we came across that Friday evening was exceptionally polite and helpful, especially when we were lost in getting to where we were going. I hope to pay a visit again in the near future.

Peter, you mention here that you work at a standing desk.
Interesting. Perhaps you could dilate a bit on the advantages and recommend one.
I do find that while I’m lazy and love to collapse into a chair(or go full out Cleopatra and stretch out on a couch), I get so little done of the reading and writing I intended to do.

”These modern censors seem to have, as it were, 'nationalised' many perfectly good and innocent English words and to have persuaded the mentally impressionable that they have somehow become 'bad words’.”

It is indeed strange especially when one thinks of how much swear words are used as if they were ’innocent’ ones. They are seemingly justified because they are ’honest’ expressions and ’funny’ for some people … The world upside down.

If I may be permitted to add a postscript to my earlier reply to contributor Ken B who wrote:
"It seems to me there is an army of professionally offended people around these days. "

One way to counteract the effect of the offended ones might possibly be encapsulated in the saying "if you can't beat them, join them".
Just as, when few people could afford to run a car, the roads were not so cluttered but now, when their owners are reckoned in so many millions, traffic jams result: so, it might be argued, if not just the silent and unnamed officially offended folk but millions of others joined their number, each finding offence in some different English word or expression, pretty soon this absurdly unBritish censorship game would, I suggest, be up.
Perhaps I might make a start. I am offended by the expression "politically correct"
I suspect in any case that it is not "correct" which is intended by its devotees but rather "corrigible".

"It seems to me there is an army of professionally offended people around these days. "

I too sometimes get that impression but who they are never seems to be disclosed. Perhaps for the purposes of the so-called 'political correctness' censorship devotees it may only be necessary that ordinary folk 'believe' them to exist.
My own main objection to this form of covert censorship of speech, if not quite yet of thought, is that it seems to have little time for, or patience with, the lifestyles and speech-styles of earlier generations.
I loved my childhood and its world and manners but, if I in today's world allow myself to reminisce about that period of my life, I must not, it seems, share my delight incautiously with others, lest some of the words and expressions which we youngsters then used without any thought - much less intention - of giving the slightest offence to a single soul have now, whether officially or not, been proscribed.
These modern censors seem to have, as it were, 'nationalised' many perfectly good and innocent English words and to have persuaded the mentally impressionable that they have somehow become 'bad words'.
I can see perfectly well why people are forbidden to steal or call people names with malice but being told that the innocuous language we innocently used as children was, had we but known it at the time, in some instances 'offensive' is more than I can endure with equanimity.

I think perhaps P.H has hit upon something here , why does he feel the need to 'caste pearls before swine ' by continuing to patronise university histrionics .Where better than an alternative moral opinion about drugs than where its damage is felt most?.

There's a de facto alliance between western Neocon governments and violent ultra-left Antifa activists - which western ruling elites mostly don't even try to hide anymore. If one side of this alliance doesn't succeed in silencing dissent, the other steps into the breach.

If a hypothetical Corbyn led government had enacted the "anti-extremist" laws the Tories brought in, many right-wingers would have waxed indignant and cited it as proof of the cuddly beardo, allotment tending mask slipping to reveal the true face of Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. When the Tories do it, they simply shrug their shoulders.

Lenin himself put this process very succinctly: "We will succeed in crushing the opposition - by leading it."

Also, for those who are unaware of it, but who wish to read more examples of how the left banish and attempt to humiliate people with opinions they dislike, the Christian Concern website is a great source of news. I recommend it, despite not currently being a practicing Christian.

In reading all the major 'universities' commitment to 'equality and diversity' and their subsequent response to those 'feeling' subjective social distress the only 'logical and 'rational' conclusion one can make is that IQ has absolutely nothing to do with wisdom.

“harassment is the violation of dignity or the creation of an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and/or offensive environment and relates to the perception of the harassed, not the intention of the alleged harasser” (from John Vernau's post)

The very obvious and frightening thing about this idea is that it enables free speech to be closed down if anyone finds something offensive. This is subjective, and in any event only an alleged harasser knows whether they intentionally want to stir things up, unless this is very obvious from their demeanor.

It seems to me there is an army of professionally offended people around these days. Those who do no want their actions or worldview to be subject to scrutiny. Those who seem unable to ignore ideas they do not agree with, and who have to have them suppressed. The whole LGBT scene would be a classic example of this, but it goes beyond these groupings.

If you suppress the truth because it offends you, you will end up living in a fantasy world. In the end the truth will out, but how much suffering might have to be endured before this happens.

I suggest a series of open air debates around the country, with Mr Hitchens and others - in cities where universities request people speaking on their premises sign these restrictive codes of practice. This would likely get wider media coverage and highlight the threat to free speech.

In regard to non existent war on Drugs,here in Germany near where I live you can see anytime of day young men hanging around the high street dressed as if they walked off an episode of the Wire , they are there all day and night and if you wait and watch for longer than 20 minutes you will see what I can only presume to be drug dealing.
Why this is tolerated I do not know .The majority of the young men selling look ,on the face of it to be mostly north African and the only people buying appear to be german .
Who exactly benefits from the selling of this product is no doubt organised crime , it is clearly not the somewhat scrawny individuals standing outside actually doing the selling.Police occasionally appear in squad cars vans etc and controll papers but compared to the massive expense of a home match of the local football team nothing much is done about it .
One can only assume that the local drug dealers will be left undisturbed unless they start to where antifa t shirts then in which case we can look forward to helicopters continuously hovering overhead.

Look at the chaos unfolding at the elite American universities like Berkeley. They cancelled a free speech four-day event after asking for and receiving $65,000 security. The admin team then refused to answer phone calls to confirm the event and actually physically ran away from someone who came to their admin dept. They then cynically announced that the admin hadn't been responded to correctly and cancelled the event.

Listening to opposing viewpoints and perhaps tentatively considering another's worldview position in relation to our own beliefs and learning from and reforming our beliefs has now come up against ideologies who know who they are, know their beliefs, know that the other is a nazi, or Hitler, and that this isn't mere hyperbole but a matter of life and death. It's well-named as identity politics and when you know your position and identify with it, any perceived shift from certainty will risk immediately invoking a primal fight or flight response.

I think once in the past, church, monarchy, party, family, the golf club, charities, etc gave us identities that were greater than our own. If we were challenged at a fundamental level about a core aspect of ourselves then there was a bulwark against the complete terror of not knowing who we are. We'd have someone or something to reassure that we weren't going to not exist anymore.

One of the things I admire about Peter Hitchens and Douglas Murray is what used to be known as the Oxford temper. A tempering of the fires that imbue the passionate argument such that they're refined into condensed light. Cool, sharp and focused. A rare alchemy in these times.

Perhaps they should teach debating as part of the core curriculum. I certainly think so.

A commendable business. I can’t help wondering whether Mr Hitchens’ official appearance would have been approved had he complied with the procedures. The initial web search might have turned up his affiliation with the Church of England, an organisation once notoriously prescriptive of sexual mores. Given that the University holds...

“... sexual orientation, marriage and civil partnership and pregnancy and maternity” to be “protected characteristics”

... a ‘risk assessment panel meeting’ might have taken a dim view of some of Mr Hitchens’ more inflammatory positions. As recently as last Sunday he blithely wrote,

“Step-parents, never quite the same as natural parents however hard they try ....”

The effect this assertion may have had on LBGTQIA+ parents is troubling, and the writer has no defence should they be troubled. As the Guild points out,

“harassment is the violation of dignity or the creation of an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating and/or offensive environment and relates to the perception of the harassed, not the intention of the alleged harasser”

***PH writes. Mr Vernau may be writing with his tongue slightly in his cheek, but as a matter of fact I think his description of the problem is deadly accurate. I have said and written many things which a diligent thought police officer could bring up against me under these extremely broad rules. ****

Wish I had been there. Mr Hitchens, I don't suppose you publish the dates of your attendance at this sort of meeting in advance do you?

***PH writes. I often do so, here, on my official Facebook Page and through Twitter, where I am @ClarkeMicah. I plugged this meeting twice on Twitter, but no more than that as it rapidly sold out and there was no further point. Had I known it would be held in the open air, more than 15 minutes before it began, I would have given it further publicity. ***

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.